so we haven’t seen jason since his…interesting…crossover with the main man of elm street in 2003’s freddy vs. jason. now, thanks in part to michael ‘blow ’em up’  bay, crystal lakes famous killer is back. and despite bay being on board, nothing blows up.

marcus nispel is at the helm of this revamp/remake amalgamation of the famous horror series and is an interesting choice with a rollercoaster record. albeit a small roller coaster but it does the up-and-down dip. nispel was the man behind the remake of the texas chainsaw massacre remake in 2003 and the abysmal bree-filled pathfinder in ’07. with chainsaw behind him, faith in the movie was there. and the faith was retained.

now it’s important to remember when watching this movie and thinking about how you liked it, you have to go into it with a certain mindset. not only is it a horror movie but it’s a remake of a  beloved series and IT’S A HORROR MOVIE. don’t go into this expecting an Oscar winner.

with that said…ahem. damian shannon and mark swift penned the story and script, continuing on with jason, as they were also the minds behind freddy vs. jason. the new take on the classic is refreshing, breathing life into a franchise that was beating itself to death much like jason does to his victims.

it begins with a montage of the death of jasons mother which allows the audience to skip the most boring part of the friday the 13th legend. we jump into the 1980’s, the GOLDEN AGE of horror, a group of teenagers [surprise!] who are camping out near the horrific camp crystal lake. jason starts the killing spree with a bang, mixing up the deaths: a stabbing, a brutal beating, a bear trap, and [my personal favorite] trapping a half naked girl in a sleeping bag and stringing her above a fire. jason keeps one of the girls in his cave due to her likeness of his mother and that leads into our plot.

jared padalecki [supernatural] and danielle panabaker [sky high] spearhead the cast with what’s expected from a horror cast: lot’s of running and screaming, followed by gasping breaths, and a cliche and brief romance. aaron yoo [21, disturbia] and travis van winkle [meet the spartans, accepted] join the cast as prominent and stand out characters, yoo once again retaining the role of funniest guy on set and van winkle reestablishing himself as a cinematic douchebag expert. derek mears does his first stint as the mutated killer and at a staggering 6′ 5” he towers over his victims and the expectations.  his jason is a mixture of the classic portrayal of the killer and a new, more engaged character. also, he RUNS. jason fucking runs. it’s a nice new touch…a fucking brilliant touch.



the movie is exciting and full of vintage horror flick standards: murder, sex, boobs, and lots of blood. it does well at incorporating new deaths in a way that isn’t corny or stale. if you’re expecting a down-and-out remake of part II [and partially part III], you’ll end up dissapointed. however, this is far better than the originals. nispel hits another home run with his remake/revamp cycle. i can only hope that he continues the trend.

bottom line: a retelling of a famous franchise that achieves it’s goal. a downright likable chiller, especially for fans of the days of yore.

what it’s comparable to: friday the 13th [parts I-III], 80’s horror movies, discovering faith in some remakes



the words ‘based on a true story’ do not resonate well with me; not because i hate true stories, mind you, but because directors and screenwriters tend to hyperbole the situation, i usually hate the term. 21 does a great job of allowing me to bypass the ‘based on a true story’ statement with ease.

the movie is the story of ben campbell, an M.I.T. student who is looking to attend harvard medical school. he is brilliant and extremely in tune with mathematics. this leads to him being invited into a ‘club’ led by his teacher, mickey rosa. now rosa is played by kevin spacey [superman returns, beyond the sea] and is the leader of the club, also leading dominantly over the cast as the most experienced actor in the bunch. the plot is simple: these genius students are counting cards and taking vegas by storm. ben gets caught up in the motions and is quickly lost to the city of sin, trying to earn enough to pay his way into harvard med. laurence fishburn jumps in as the dying breed of security guard, and does so nicely with his grit and grime attitude that represents the old underground style of vegas.

the movie is considerably well done, and after seeing the previous attempts of the director and writers, it’s really a bit of a surprise. robert luketics formers include legally blonde and monster-in-law while alan loeb and peter steinfeld [the writers] wrote things we lost in the fire and be cool, respectively. WOW! this is a 180 in everyones case. the movie is a well-written, awesomely directed drama-comedy-thriller. now honestly, i didn’t find any of their past movies very funny or even really good, but i thoroughly enjoyed this one.

the premise is fun and enjoyable and the fact that the set switches between vegas and boston creates a wonderful mixture of a basic setting and an over-the-top setting. the lives led in boston are contrast by the lives in vegas and the kids live a wonderful bright lifestyle where their acting really shines. aaron yoo [disturbia] is perfect as the comedic relief and josh gad plays as a seth rogen wannabe but does a good enough job to not be a carbon clone. the real chemistry is with jim sturgess [across the universe] and kate bosworth [also superman returns, beyond the sea], as both do an excellent job of not only handling their character but creating a real-looking relationship on the screen.

21 2

the ending is a bit predictable but it has a nice twist on it. it’s also a tad bit too fairy tale but it works out and rounds the flick out as an all together feel-good movie. from the slew of shit that has been on the silver screen lately…this is the best thing thus far.

the movie is fun and entertaining, well written and well acted. spacey is an awesome villain and sturgess is setting himself up for many leading man roles in the future. it has everything a movie of this caliber should have: comedy, action, sex appeal, and wit. i would easily watch it again and enjoy it.

bottom line: it’s good, especially considering how much the other shitty movies are in theaters, it’s the best of the bunch. it’s half a blast and very easy to sit through. time flew, which is a good thing, and all of the acting and plot are well done.

what it’s comparable to: a trip to vegas, daydreaming what your college experience should be, the cooler.

yes! i am back. for a bit their simply was not enough time in my schedule to movie review. i’ve cleared some things out of the way and i am back to my reviews. ready for it?


so i figured in dedication, to celebrate the day of st. valentine, i would observe and analyze some romance movies. with atonement unfortunately already ‘under the belt,’ my selections were few and far between. i settled, with a heaving sigh, to watch 27 dresses and p.s. i love you. this review is for the alpha selection.

katherine heigl [grey’s anatomy] pulls her first triple-a title, co-starring with james marsden [x-men, superman returns] and some minor no-names. it’s of no astonishment, i’m sure, that i made presumptions about the film seconds after seeing the trailer. my stomach wrenched at the though of another down-and-out boring, fairy-tale-ending wedding story.

flashbacks occured: runaway bride, my best friends wedding, the wedding planner. i wept to myself with the possibilities, distraught with rampant rememberings of terrible screenings. this flick, however, is not nearly as terrible as the other meager attempts of wedding craziness. that’s because the movie isn’t a wedding move per say, it’s a love story and a comedy and a tale of realization.

heigl is a very amazon-esque woman of exquisite beauty but she adds a certain amount of quirkiness to her surroundings. she is impossible to ignore with her mixture of sarcastic bitter humor and strange amounting sense of sexiness. her actions are key to the film, a nice subtlety that adds neatly to the screen.

the true show stealer is james marsden. for an actor who portrays such a dick for his largest know role [cyclops], he is oozing with charm and personality in this polar opposite. his character is a journalist who chronicles heigls ascending ranks of bridesmaid hell, thus the name of the movie, 27 [bridesmaids]dresses. while he is just a sidekick to heigl, most scenes with him involved make the statuesque cutie seem like she’s playing second fiddle.


now a show of hands? who is mocking me as you read this. that’s what i thought. it’s a bit sappy but the movie had a terrific line up for it’s directing crew. anne fletcher [forty year old virgin, longest yard] directs to a keen script from aline mckenna [the devil wears prada, joss whedons’ drive].

so while, in all honesty, i grudgingly have to admit that i enjoyed the movie for the majority, it has a few scathing flaws. the princess-meets-the-prince ending is embarrassingly foreseeable and choice moments of the movie are not funny. the chemistry between heigl and marsden is fine but every other relationship [with friends, parents, etc] seems contrived and never fleshed out.

i honestly didn’t really care about the wedding sub plot. the interesting themes were between the shots of weddings and such. watching heigl and marsden grow closer together despite several very noticeable difference is fun and mildly interesting as well.

there is nothing stunning and sparkling about 27 dresses but i admire it. it’s tough to make a film that isn’t horribly cliche, boring and ill-conceived. i didn’t hate this movie, i didn’t even dislike it. i would view it again on a date even. and a thousand times more than southland tales or walk hard.

bottom line: groan as much as you like, the movie is not that bad. it’s an above average, somewhat relate able chick flick. but it is a chick flick.

the movie is comparable to: the wedding planner, a lifetime channel story, talking to women about love and such for a few hours


note: the following does not take place in regular robot vs. zombie format. if you are looking for a bottom line or comparison, there are none. it should be quite apparent what i think of it though. read on and enjoy.

“dear 20th century fox, regency enterprises, and all other miserable companies involved,

why? that is truly the only word that can encompass how i feel about your pile-of-shit spoof meet the spartans. as soon as my eyes unfortunately viewed the trailer [and immediately try to commit suicide afterwards, nearly propelling themselves out of my skull], i mouthed, or perhaps cried out in verbal outrage, ‘why?’

this movie is an evildoing. its gag humor and terrible attempts at satire are so utterly played out and incredibly tiring to watch. i saw every joke coming from a mile away; however, it was not sufficient enough time or space to stop my mind from suffering extreme cases of hatred.

i hate you twentieth century fox, with the flaming tortured passion of a thousand christs. at what point did anyone laugh while testing this film? gay jokes and pop culture references…that is your entire list of humor. oh look! spartans equal gay. throw in ghost rider, spider-man 3, and american idol references and we have a hit.

your pitiful attempts of poking fun at hollywood are sad and not even saturday night live worthy. turning paris hilton into some deranged parallel of ephialtes and casting xerxes with the fat and over-rated ken davitian; these are ways to destroy the film industry. good job.

i don’t know what upsets me more; the fact that you allowed this movie to be made or the sad and unavoidable actuality that americans love retarded shit like this. i mean, fuck, we have masterpieces like no country for old men and atonement in theaters but this atrocity reaches top spot in the box office.


fuck you america. this is why people can’t figure out that coffee is hot and then sue people after spilling it on themselves; because we [excluding myself and privileged other] submit ourselves to trash like this. talk about beating a dead horse. what’s worse though? this movie or the fact that they are going to keep making them?

the acting is atrocious. i don’t know how you roped carmen electra and method man into doing more than one of these flicks but their pockets must be heavily padded as of present. and kevin sorbo!? fuck you thrice. your make up artists are terrible, the script probably took a week to write [at most], and the special effects are nineties.

i could place the blame on so many people: fox [who deserves much of it], jason friedberg [who wrote this, along with scary movie and a number of stupefying duplicates], or people. i choose to place the blame on people. so this letter is for you, populace of the world, a big steady ‘fuck you, you stupid cross-eyed retarded morons. i hope meteors fucking smash your brains in and turn your bodies into smoldering ash.’

as for me? i illegally downloaded the movie. so yeah.

with deepest regards,



i don’t have the most expertise when it comes to computer technicalities and circuitry but i have for more knowledge than your average thirty year old. i grew up in a generation that was raised with the internet, so when i hear things like “hacked into my wireless network,” i scoff and try to control my laughter. untraceable is an internet movie for thirty year olds.

this movie, is by no means, loathsome; in fact, i would rather watch it than the slew of other saw copycats. it is just that though: a copycat. the movie takes place in modern day portland, oregon. diane lane [unfaithful, hollywoodland] stars as a “cybercop,” a federal agent who utilizes the internet to catch criminals and bust frauds. her partner griffin is played by colin hanks [king kong, alone with her] and the unavoidable good cop role is taken up by billy burke [along came a spider, fracture].

the premise is basic: a serial killer is capturing victims and killing them in accordance with hits on his website. the fictional web address, ‘,’ is a live streaming video of the murderer as he kills his victims with various torture methods. he uses schadenfreude as his weapon and plays off the worlds tendency to view things that were once taboo, all capable due to the internet. eventually the killer, played by joseph cross [running with scissors, flags of our fathers], targets the ‘cybercops.’

now the film is slyly interjecting the message that america and it’s obsession with the internet is going to lead to sick and twisted hobbies; unfortunately, it already does. for our generation, my contemporaries, we chuckle and tease the flick because it’s such a stupid premise. but to everyone over, let’s say twenty five, they witness the atrocities of the movie and become objectively horrified at what the world has come to. please realize, the film is a hyperbole, a very extreme and violent exaggeration.


so not only does this tale portray the current epoch as cruel and deranged individuals but it also paints a ridiculous picture of cyberspace. with remarks like “his ip address it constantly changing” or the legendary “he hacked my car!” it only makes it easier to target this movie. if your techno privy, things like proxy’s help make sense of what can only be considered technobabble to all those incapable of using the computer. hacked my car? wow. the killer actually makes her windshield wipers turn on and off.


there are, however, a few qualities that make the film tolerable. the setting has a considerable amount take place in broad daylight. any horror genre film that even attempts to slightly terrify people under the bright rays of our sun garners respect from me. day time is a security blanket for people as a whole. nothing bad can happen in the big bright open…can it? to challenge that preset way of thinking is always an admirable feature. the other respectable aspect are the torture methods. as gross as it sounds, they are completely original and unique and take a clever leaf from saw‘s unavoidable book.

the performances are nothing sensational and lane shows her age more than ever. burke’s sexual tension with lane is never explored, an irritating subplot that is scarcely touched upon. the films rare attempts at humor are terrible but, overall, i was able to sit through it with a pinch of interest. the detective subtext introduced at the end is an interesting tie-in but too little too late. the director, gregory hoblit [fallen, frequency] does nothing extraordinary with a nothing but ordinary movie.

bottom line: it’s worth a rent. if you’re a nineties kid or a techie, it’s a laugh. if not, it’s a somewhat interesting storyline with bearable acting and nifty methods for murder.

the movie is comparable to: saw, fear dot com, captivity, the realization of just how old your parents are, embracing your youth and the fact that we grew up in a techno savvy era.


i’ve always read reviews that discuss how ‘compelling’ or ‘amazing’ it is and, in most cases, shrug it off with a casual glance-by. the same formula was inappropriately coupled with the reviews for atonement. i had a pedestrian interest in the film after first taking notice of it but i continuously put off actually viewing it because it appeared slow and dragging.


the movie, actually, is amazing. based in pre-world war II england, it is the story of two lovers, torn apart due to a violent misunderstanding early in the film. the movie is an adaptation of the novel, of the same name, by ian mcewan. kiera knightley [pride and prejudice, bend it like beckham] and james mcavoy [the last king of scotland, macbeth] are the leading romantic duo and the remaining cast are virtual unknowns that, paired with knightley and mcavoy, create the most moving and powerful cast i’ve even seen portrayed.

to describe the movie without ruining it [or to even fully chronicle it at all] is nigh-impossible. this post could just be a random scramble of words that could all easily apply to the dramatic love story; touching, beautiful, epic, magnificent, magical, endearing, tragic, lovely, endearing, breathtaking and perfect would all be words on the list. the acting is precise to a tee, every line, every movement is significant and played out amazingly. to pay less attention to any actor/actress of this alluring magnum opus would be an injustice. the screen play, written by christopher hampton, is flawless. this, however, is a dim candle compared to the articulate lighthouse of cinematography and direction.


joe wright [director of pride and prejudice] has a long and promising career ahead of him, already creating a classic such as this, just his second major release film. in particular films it’s quite standard to overpass the direction in it, a role generally overlooked by the general public. i admit, i don’t always take notice to it, a lot of the films notoriety is up to the actors, the graphics, the lines. joe wright made me notice, frame by frame, the beauty which he was capturing. he is exquisite at what he does and every shot is alluring.

it’s strange yet splendid to see a film that captures so many elements at once. whimsy, love, tragedy, longing; just to name a few. the movie never loses your attention as soon as it starts; it’s paced with an amazing timing that is suspenseful and playful, challenging the viewer to watch [and enjoy] every second of it.

to further down myself with cliches, i have not ever experienced a viewing that created a paradigm shift for myself. this movie did that to me. it made me appreciate specific sections of my life that i did not before, it created a powerful and classic movement in my way of viewing things.

FUCK! that has never happened to me before. i love this movie. it’s so splendid and lucid, with quick and meaningful dialect, epic scenery, and heart rending repercussions.

bottom line: this is, by far, on my top three lists of movies i’ve ever had the pleasure to sit through. watch it. it, hopefully, can affect you, move you, address you on a personal level. it’s my personal pick for oscar “best picture.”

the movie is comparable to: falling in love, heartwarming tear jerking nights, falling asleep in the mid-summer nights with a soft and careful breeze caressing your feelings with it’s touch.


i’ve reviewed a number of terrible films since the creation of my blog, even a meager amount of films that achieved mediocrity status. i hated, hated, walk hard:the dewey cox story and one missed call; i would rather watch them back to back while allowing loud obnoxious children to drive remote control monster trucks with tacks attached to the tires over my naked body than ever sit through or [after this blog] discuss southland tales ever again.

dewey cox had excessive amounts of potential, southland tales squanders their teeny mass with a magnitude of star power. i mean, fuck, look at the line up: dwayne “the rock” johnson [walking tall, the rundown], justin timberlake [alpha dog], mandy moore [american dreamz, a walk to remember], sarah michelle gellar [of buffy fame], sean william scott [american pie series], jon lovitz [s.n.l. star], kevin smith [infamous scribe of dogma, clerks, etc.], john larroquette [boston legal, mcbride], just to name a few. now before you scoff at the list i just presented (mandy moore? justin timberlake? HA), watch some of their more intimate serious roles. they are really quite talented actresses/actors respectively.

onward. to cap off the seemingly endless possibilities of cult classic-dom, richard kelly pulled double duty as writer and director. richard kelly is the man who brought every little indie hipster the midnight movie classic donnie darko. yeah, that guy. looking at the line-up, i loved the movie. i watched the trailer with soaring expectations; it looked epic.

the movie is a jumbled, chaotic mess of intangible plot threads and dead pan acting. i really like the rock as a performer [save for scorpion king] but he got caught up in a terrible mess this time around. let’s first pry into the plot: it’s in a psuedo-post apocalyptic united states where republican dominance has led to an orwellian society, where big brother not only watches but kills. political ambiance is relevant, as is an obligatory oil emergency message and terrible sub plots.

kelly has one oversize problem; he packs too many complicities into the film. none of the machinations can fully flesh out, thus causing each one to become contrived and cut off far before climax. other annoyances include lack of logic, unexplained or poorly explained twists, and a random supernatural time travel paradox. i understand mister kelly, he enjoys penning time travel, but he pushing it with darko. in southland tales, he goes from nearly illogical to incredibly unreasonable, i’d say even to the point of complete and utter nonsense.

nearly every talented actor takes a nose dive, the rock and gellar taking the brunt of the blast [with scott a close second]. one missing piece to this multifaceted puzzle is soul; every role is deprived of soul, they’re just occupations. it was if kelly told them to mime their roles and dubbed voice in later; it’s slow, tired, boring and overall lacking substance.


one surprise was justin timberlake. he was literally the only redeeming quality of the entire span of the mess. he plays his role with spirit and vibrant flair with a whimsical and catchy musical number near the end of the movie. i loved donnie darko, it will always hold a special place in my heart. southland tales? it deserves a place in the incinerator.

bottom line: what a piece of shit. i fell asleep, like, four times. it never made sense. i had to look up the plot line four or five times just so i could follow along. cars have sex in it. yeah, vehicular intercourse. it’s fucking stupid.

the movie is comparable to: throwing your brain into a blender, turning your eyes into kaleidoscopes and walking around in a tye-dye maze, wanting to die, epic movie


have you ever heard the phrase “oh how the mighty have fallen?”

apply that directly to this movie.

walk hard: the dewey cox story stars john c. reilly, jenna fischer, and was written and co-produced by uber popular scribe judd apatow. if you allow your eyes to wander to the post preceding this by one, alvin and the chipmunks, i reference the great sadness that fills me to see such a talented and lovable actor [in that case jason lee] sink to such a low. walk hard brings all three of the before mentioned talents to a new low.

john c. reilly, though most noted for his roles as a dim wit in not only talladega nights:the ballad of ricky bobby, but now as the lead moron in walk hard was once a very noted performer. he was nominated for an oscar several times and appeared in such critically acclaimed films as the hours, gangs of new york, chicago, and the aviator. jenna fischer is a personal favorite of my friends and i because of her firm and sultry role as pam in the office and judd apatow has helped create some of the most gut-busting laugh riots this side of the century. what happened here?

the movie is a satire of the string of music biopics that have prevailed over tinsel town as of late. parodying ray, the buddy holly story, and most importantly ring of fire, cox just tries too hard to be funny. much of the humor is very tongue-in-cheek but it doesn’t quite fit, like a puzzle piece that has been dropped in water. through much of the movie, i feel as though i’m watching an s.n.l. skit rather than a full length feature.


the director, jake kasdan [orange county], decided to use reilly as the actor for cox through his whole life story, save for his childhood. stupid. it wasn’t funny to see reilly acting as if he were fourteen when his face shows the signs of a long lived life. it was amateur and cheap. the film covers his whole life story, his struggles and his aspirations, and almost parallels ring of fire to a tee. while this is somewhat commendable it was boring and made the film all the more predictable.

the movie had a bolstering line-up, including harold ramis [ghostbusters], jack black [king kong, high fidelity], justin long [accepted, live free or die hard], frankie muniz [malcolm in the middle], tim meadows [ladies man, benchwarmers] and even jonah hill [superbad.] you think that out of all that talent you could get one laugh out of me. just one.

they did. once. jonah hill will never fail me.

this movie sucks. it down right was not entertaining. i hate to go there but i must: it was retarded. the jokes fall flat and the acting is uninspired. i became easily bored and none of his changes intrigued as much as, say, this is spinal tap. the potential was there but none of the punch lines fell through.

p.s. male genitalia isn’t funny. it’s humor for the stupid man.

bottom line: don’t waste your time. watch something funnier, fanboys or even rummage through the video vault and go watch some older classier satires, spaceballs or young frankenstein.

the movie is comparable to: terrible satires, an even more boring shriek if you know what i did last friday the 13th, losing half of your brain in a terrible helicopter accident


it’s a few months old but i finally decided to buckle down and watch alvin and the chipmunks. now before i start, i didn’t even have any preconceived notions of this film. i didn’t expect it to be horrid or wildly entertaining, in actuality, i didn’t presuppose to ever watch the cgi flick. but i did.

now here’s the shocker; i did not hate the movie. in fact, i laughed much more during this re-done early nineties animation than i did in st. trinian’s or walk hard:the dewey cox story. now let’s go over the pros and cons of the movie, because their are many of both parties involved.

let’s review the good qualities primarily. it very much plays off the nostalgic days of yesteryear, chipmunk singing including. the movie is funny, it’s just not adult funny, in fact, i wouldn’t expect any adults to even enjoy the movie in the slightest. in fact i don’t anticipate most mature audiences rating it above a five. as for me, i don’t know if it was the sentimentality of the premise or the always likable jason lee, but i enjoyed it. i did not thoroughly love it, but it was definitely entertaining and even heartwarming.

it sounds cliche but the movie tugged at the chords of my heart much like transformers did; this may be one reason that i overlooked many of it’s glaring flaws. weird, comparing transformers and alvin and the chipmunks, but if i watched one more than the other, the award would go the choral rodents.


i grew up on chipmunk records, movies and adored the cartoon. alvin was as much a hero to me as bart simpson was. voices from the past aside, it was fun to watch. it wasn’t great. it was like the plain jane at a bar after a night of drunken flirtatiousness, a one nighter, two timer at best.

now for the flaws. the movie is outdated. watching it, i flashbacked to the nineties when cgi was just coming into the cinematic playing field. it felt more like a family film than anything but was much to childish for parents. also, it’s sad to see the once godly jason lee of mallrats and dogma fame revert to update nineties revamp. fart jokes abound along with silly slapstick that doesn’t quite sit right. to be honest, my opinion is jaded from growing up through the alvin decade.

the plot is generic and overdone. i couldn’t stand the way it played out, it was completely predictable. it was so sub-par but that’s what i have to deal with when it comes to renewals. oh well.

as an epilogue: having justin long and jessie mccartney doing the voices doesn’t fucking matter. the chipmunks will sound like the chipmunks no matter what. it’s computer tech.

bottom line: don’t expect transformers. precognate a musical tmnt. it’s children’s entertainment and draws heavily on mid-nineties comedy, which even chronologically old.

the movie is comparable to: watching a marathon of all your favorite oldie saturday morning cartoons, feeling warm and fuzzy in the snare of a fur blanket by the fire, tmnt or toy story.